UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 21-cv-21634-BLOOM
MATTHEW ALEXANDER KING,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN CARLTON,
Defendant. / ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Matthew Alexander King’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration of Decision Denying 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Petition], ECF No. [5] (“Motion”). On April 28, 2021, pro se Plaintiff nominally filed a Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. [1] (“Petition”). After careful review, the Court denied the Petition without prejudice and granted Petitioner leave to amend his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its decisions. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied. In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that his Petition was properly filed under § 2241, as it alleged “civil rights violations” and violations regarding the “conditions of his confinement.” ECF No. [5] ¶ 1 (citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)). Plaintiff further argues that his Petition “carries merits similar to multiple cases filed in the Southern District of Florida . . . [a]ll of which were filed and accepted under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Id. ¶ 2 (citing Daniels v. Carlton, No. 21-cv-22709, King v. Carlton, No. 21-cv-20596, Martinez v. Carlton, No. 19-cv-206021). Lastly, Plaintiff maintains that due to the Court’s “prior involvement in Plaintiff’s criminal case,
1 The Court notes that it could not locate Martinez v. Carlton, 19-cv-20602, as cited in the Motion. [Case No. 19-cr-20272-BB], this case should have been ‘randomly reassigned’ to avoid conflicts of interest, bias, [and] prejudice.” Id. ¶ 4 (citations omitted). A motion for reconsideration requests the Court to grant “an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1370 (S.D. Fla. 2002). A party may not use a motion for reconsideration to “relitigate old matters, raise
argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)). “This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Id. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998)). District courts may only grant a motion for reconsideration when there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Hood v. Perdue, 300 F. App’x 699, 700 (11th Cir. 2008). Thus, a motion to reconsider is “appropriate where, for example, the Court has patently
misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Kapila v. Grant Thornton, LLP, No. 14-61194-CIV, 2017 WL 3638199, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2017) (quoting Z.K. Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992)). Plaintiff’s Motion is due to be denied for several reasons. First, the Motion misconstrues the Court’s Order to Amend, see ECF No. [4]. In support of reconsideration, Plaintiff states that his Petition “alleges civil rights violations, and the conditions of his confinement.” ECF No. [1] at 2. The Court agrees with this statement and reminds Plaintiff that a § 2241 Petition is not the proper vehicle to raise conditions of confinement claims. Indeed, § 2241 permits a district court to grant a writ of habeas corpus whenever a petitioner is in “custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Where a Plaintiff alleges civil rights violations and seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, he should file a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Daker v. Warden, 805 F. App’x 648, 650 (11th Cir. 2020) (“It is well established that “claims challenging the fact or duration of a sentence fall within the ‘core’ of habeas corpus, while claims challenging the conditions of confinement ‘fall outside
of that core and may be brought pursuant to § 1983.’” (quoting Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 644 (2004))). As such, the Court ordered Plaintiff to amend his claims pursuant to § 1983. See ECF No. [4]. The Court further highlights that the cases cited by Plaintiff support construing his claims as a civil rights complaint, and not as a petition under § 2241. For example, in King v. Carlton, No. 21-cv-20596 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2021), ECF No. [1], a § 2241 habeas petition was the proper vehicle because petitioner challenged the duration of his confinement. Additionally, in Daniels v. Carlton, No. 21-cv-21704 (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2021), ECF No. [3], petitioner sought compensatory damages arising from the challenged conditions of his confinement. Upon screening, the district
court found that “[b]ecause the Plaintiff challenges the conditions of his confinement and seeks damages, this action is properly brought, if at all, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).” Id. at 1 (citations omitted). Here, like the Petitioner in Daniels, Plaintiff raised claims challenging the conditions of his confinement and is seeking monetary relief. ECF No. [1]. Therefore, it was proper to construe the § 2241 Petition as a civil rights complaint and order Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must show that he or she was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.” Griffin v. City of Opa Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognizing implied cause of action for damages for violation of federal rights by a federal officer). Plaintiff raised claims against both state and federal actors in his Petition. Should Plaintiff file an amended § 1983 complaint raising claims against state and federal actors, the Court will consider any claims raised against federal officers under Bivens. The Court reminds Plaintiff that his amended complaint must adhere to federal pleading standards. See Fed. R. Civ. P.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 21-cv-21634-BLOOM
MATTHEW ALEXANDER KING,
Plaintiff,
v.
WARDEN CARLTON,
Defendant. / ORDER ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Plaintiff Matthew Alexander King’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Reconsideration of Decision Denying 28 U.S.C. § 2241 [Petition], ECF No. [5] (“Motion”). On April 28, 2021, pro se Plaintiff nominally filed a Petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, ECF No. [1] (“Petition”). After careful review, the Court denied the Petition without prejudice and granted Petitioner leave to amend his claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff now asks the Court to reconsider its decisions. For the reasons that follow, the Motion is denied. In his Motion, Plaintiff argues that his Petition was properly filed under § 2241, as it alleged “civil rights violations” and violations regarding the “conditions of his confinement.” ECF No. [5] ¶ 1 (citing Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971)). Plaintiff further argues that his Petition “carries merits similar to multiple cases filed in the Southern District of Florida . . . [a]ll of which were filed and accepted under 28 U.S.C. § 2241.” Id. ¶ 2 (citing Daniels v. Carlton, No. 21-cv-22709, King v. Carlton, No. 21-cv-20596, Martinez v. Carlton, No. 19-cv-206021). Lastly, Plaintiff maintains that due to the Court’s “prior involvement in Plaintiff’s criminal case,
1 The Court notes that it could not locate Martinez v. Carlton, 19-cv-20602, as cited in the Motion. [Case No. 19-cr-20272-BB], this case should have been ‘randomly reassigned’ to avoid conflicts of interest, bias, [and] prejudice.” Id. ¶ 4 (citations omitted). A motion for reconsideration requests the Court to grant “an extraordinary remedy to be employed sparingly.” Burger King Corp. v. Ashland Equities, Inc., 181 F. Supp. 2d 1366, 1370 (S.D. Fla. 2002). A party may not use a motion for reconsideration to “relitigate old matters, raise
argument or present evidence that could have been raised prior to the entry of judgment.” Wilchombe v. TeeVee Toons, Inc., 555 F.3d 949, 957 (11th Cir. 2009) (quoting Michael Linet, Inc. v. Village of Wellington, Fla., 408 F.3d 757, 763 (11th Cir. 2005)). “This prohibition includes new arguments that were ‘previously available, but not pressed.’” Id. (quoting Stone v. Wall, 135 F.3d 1438, 1442 (11th Cir. 1998)). District courts may only grant a motion for reconsideration when there is (1) an intervening change in controlling law, (2) the availability of new evidence, and (3) the need to correct clear error or prevent manifest injustice. See Hood v. Perdue, 300 F. App’x 699, 700 (11th Cir. 2008). Thus, a motion to reconsider is “appropriate where, for example, the Court has patently
misunderstood a party, or has made a decision outside the adversarial issues presented to the Court by the parties, or has made an error not of reasoning but of apprehension.” Kapila v. Grant Thornton, LLP, No. 14-61194-CIV, 2017 WL 3638199, at *1 (S.D. Fla. Aug. 23, 2017) (quoting Z.K. Marine Inc. v. M/V Archigetis, 808 F. Supp. 1561, 1563 (S.D. Fla. 1992)). Plaintiff’s Motion is due to be denied for several reasons. First, the Motion misconstrues the Court’s Order to Amend, see ECF No. [4]. In support of reconsideration, Plaintiff states that his Petition “alleges civil rights violations, and the conditions of his confinement.” ECF No. [1] at 2. The Court agrees with this statement and reminds Plaintiff that a § 2241 Petition is not the proper vehicle to raise conditions of confinement claims. Indeed, § 2241 permits a district court to grant a writ of habeas corpus whenever a petitioner is in “custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2241(c)(3). Where a Plaintiff alleges civil rights violations and seeks to challenge the conditions of his confinement, he should file a civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Daker v. Warden, 805 F. App’x 648, 650 (11th Cir. 2020) (“It is well established that “claims challenging the fact or duration of a sentence fall within the ‘core’ of habeas corpus, while claims challenging the conditions of confinement ‘fall outside
of that core and may be brought pursuant to § 1983.’” (quoting Nelson v. Campbell, 541 U.S. 637, 644 (2004))). As such, the Court ordered Plaintiff to amend his claims pursuant to § 1983. See ECF No. [4]. The Court further highlights that the cases cited by Plaintiff support construing his claims as a civil rights complaint, and not as a petition under § 2241. For example, in King v. Carlton, No. 21-cv-20596 (S.D. Fla. Feb. 26, 2021), ECF No. [1], a § 2241 habeas petition was the proper vehicle because petitioner challenged the duration of his confinement. Additionally, in Daniels v. Carlton, No. 21-cv-21704 (S.D. Fla. May 5, 2021), ECF No. [3], petitioner sought compensatory damages arising from the challenged conditions of his confinement. Upon screening, the district
court found that “[b]ecause the Plaintiff challenges the conditions of his confinement and seeks damages, this action is properly brought, if at all, under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).” Id. at 1 (citations omitted). Here, like the Petitioner in Daniels, Plaintiff raised claims challenging the conditions of his confinement and is seeking monetary relief. ECF No. [1]. Therefore, it was proper to construe the § 2241 Petition as a civil rights complaint and order Plaintiff to file an amended complaint. To state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, “a plaintiff must show that he or she was deprived of a federal right by a person acting under color of state law.” Griffin v. City of Opa Locka, 261 F.3d 1295, 1303 (11th Cir. 2001); see also Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971) (recognizing implied cause of action for damages for violation of federal rights by a federal officer). Plaintiff raised claims against both state and federal actors in his Petition. Should Plaintiff file an amended § 1983 complaint raising claims against state and federal actors, the Court will consider any claims raised against federal officers under Bivens. The Court reminds Plaintiff that his amended complaint must adhere to federal pleading standards. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 8.; see also S.D. L.R. 88.2(a)(4).
Moreover, the Court denies Plaintiff’s recusal request. See ECF No. [5] at 2. Plaintiff’s request is legally insufficient as he offers no evidence of bias, conflict of interest, or prejudice. Nor has Plaintiff alleged that the Court cannot be fair and impartial. See 28 U.S.C. § 144 (affidavit seeking recusal must “state the facts and the reasons for the belief that bias or prejudice exists.”); see also Giles v. Garwood, 853 F.2d 876, 878 (11th Cir. 1988) (“A judge should not recuse himself based upon unsupported, irrational, or tenuous allegations.” (citing United States v. Greenough, 782 F.2d 1556, 1558-59 (11th Cir. 1986))); Mystique, Inc. v. 138 Int’l, Inc, No. 07-22937-CIV, 2010 WL 1740698, at *2 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 29, 2010) (motion for recusal was “legally insufficient” where “[n]o allegation of personal bias ha[d] been alleged, cited, or even hinted at in any way.”);
Maldonado v. Rhoden, No. 3:20-CV-418-BJD-PDB, 2021 WL 1293425, at *1 (M.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2021) (“A judge is not biased against a civil litigant merely because the judge participated in a criminal action involving the same litigant or related facts.” (citing In re Corrugated Container Antitrust Litig., 614 F.2d 958, 966 (5th Cir. 1980))). Thus, Plaintiff’s request is without merit. Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows: 1. The Motion, ECF No. [5], is DENIED. 2. The Clerk is DIRECTED to provide Petitioner with a copy of the form for a Complaint for Violation of Civil Rights pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1983, and the Application to Proceed in District Court Without Prepaying Fees or Costs. 3. Petitioner is cautioned that failure to file the amended complaint, the filing fee, or Case No. 21-cv-21634-BLOOM
the motion to proceed in forma pauperis on or before May 31, 2021 and in compliance with the Court’s Order to Amend, ECF No. [4], may result in dismissal of this case for failure to prosecute or failure to comply with court orders. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on May 19, 2021.
BETHBLOOM i (asti‘“‘(i:it:~™ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to: Counsel of Record Matthew Alexander King 17576-104 Miami FDC Federal Detention Center Inmate Mail/Parcels Post Office Box 019120 Miami, FL 33101